MUTHUVENKATASESHAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER. Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent herein relating to his proceedings in G.O.Ms.No.48 Highways (HP2) Department dated 05.03.2001 and quash the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the property bearing New T.S.No.8/2 Ward D, Block 38, Door No.10, Srinivasapuram Street, Thennur Village, Tiruchirapalli " 17 and quash the same. The land comprised in T.S.No.8/2 Ward D, Block 38, Door No.10, Srinivasapuram Street, Thennur Village, Tiruchirapalli was originally owned by one Mr.Jayarama Iyer. The petitioner purchased the same under two different sale deeds dated 20.07.1983 and 21.07.1983. There is no doubt that as of now, the petitioner is the absolute owner of the property. There is also a house constructed on the same which is surrounded by a compound wall and the petitioner has been admittedly in possession of the same.

(2.) THE first respondent initiated proceedings for acquiring a number of lands, including a part of the above land belonging to the petitioner for a public purpose viz., for constructing railway over bridge. A notice under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the respect of all such lands. But in so far as the land in question is concerned, the same was issued in the name of Mr.Jayarama Iyer and not in the name of the petitioner, who is the owner of the property. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the acquisition proceedings. THE said notification under Section 4(1) of the Act came to be issued by invoking the emergency power provided in Section 17 of the Act, dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A of the Act. Subsequently, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, appears to have been made, in which also the petitioner"s name was not mentioned. However, notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued in respect of the award enquiry. THE said notice was issued in the name of Mr.Jayarama Iyer, son of Muthuvenkatesan. When the notice was attempted to be served on the petitioner, though it was addressed to Mr.Jayarama Iyer son of Mr. Muthuvenkatesan, the petitioner received the said notice. THEn he appeared before the Award Officer and participated in the same and raised his objections. Simultaneously, the petitioner rushed to this Court with this writ petition challenging the very acquisition proceedings. In the mean while, the award enquiry was proceeded further and an award has also been passed.

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel would further contend that a part of the land of the petitioner which is surrounded by a compound wall and a part of actual construction i.e., the building is sought to be acquired. THE learned Senior Counsel would point out that since the property which is sought to be acquired is in respect of a house site and building, the District Collector has to pass an order under Section 49 of the Act. But there was no such order issued by the District Collector.